I don't get why everyone is freaking out about trying to predefine the social rules for this thing. Rather, to be more literal, I should say I do get it but don't agree with it.

Wearable computing and ubiquitous photography are going to be things as the cost of hardware falls. This is already true compared even to the world of the late nineties. Google glass is just the first attempt, but there will be others. WSJ opinion pieces are not going to define how people use it.

The actual social drawbacks combined with the benefits will be the determining factor in how people use it. I imagine (from actually watching people's reaction to the device in person) that in real scenarios most people will not care that you are wearing a Glass/iSee/Windows Goggle 8. And likewise, the relative infrequency of surreptitious recording being useful will limit how often the devices will be used that way.